Dhankar_Religion in School Education

Religion in school education: possibilities and
problems

Rohit Dhankar

One often comes across expression of worries regarding
lack of moral values in present day education. The
teaching of religion in schools is advanced as a preferred
solution to this problem. Teaching of religion is also often
suggested as a means to reduce tension and strife between
followers‟ of different faiths.

Basically these claims boil down to two contentions: one,
that knowledge of each other‟s religion will enhance
mutual goodwill; and two, that religion can become a
viable basis of moral development in a secular democratic
society. Both contentions stand in need of critical
examination.

Such examination will require a distinction between
„religious teaching‟ and „teaching about religions‟. This
distinction is often ignored when arguments to introduce
religion in curriculum are advanced. „Religious teaching‟
indicates teaching of the religious dogmas as well as
acceptance of those dogmas. For example, teaching
Hinduism for a vaishnavite may involve making students
believe that Krishna was really an avatar of Vishnu.
Teaching Islam and Christianity will respectively involve
making the students believe that Muhammad was really a
prophet of Allah and that Christ was really the son of
God.

„Teaching about religions‟, on the other hand, will limit to
helping the students to understand the religious beliefs,
but without any commitment to their truth. In „teaching
about religions‟, then, the three religious beliefs
mentioned above need to be understood, critically
examined; but the students are not required to accept
them.

Religious teaching, then, will be incompatible with a
secular education system. That leads to the assumption
that those who want to introduce religion in curriculum
are recommending „teaching about religions‟.

In principle understanding of each other‟s belief systems
should facilitate better mutual understanding, and
therefore, enhance harmonious living of different
religious groups. This should also increase sensitivity and
tolerance as knowledge of the others‟ beliefs helps
understanding emotional importance of those beliefs for
them. But in a multi-religious secular democracy there
might be serious practical problems in teaching about
religions in schools.

Let‟s note that one important aim of education in
democracies is to develop critical citizenship; as no
democracy can function well without constantly watchful
citizens. Development of critical citizenship necessarily
require independence of judgment and action. Which in
turn will demand critical rational examination of all ideas
and beliefs. Therefore, if one has to teach about religions
in a democratic system what is being taught has to submit
to critical rational examination. The study of religions,
then, cannot be a “reverential study” as Gandhi along
with many other often recommended. It has to be a
critical study rationally examining every belief and event
in the history of religions.

Critical study of religions in schools is likely to create a
practical problem with two dimensions. One, lack of
teachers who can deal with religious beliefs and history
with respect, without biases and at the same time without
slightest compromise in incisive analysis, without
compromising on precise expression of the results of
rational enquiry; whether they be favourable or
unfavourable to religious beliefs. Our system at resent
does not have enough teachers who can take up this task.
The second dimension is that the very people who are
recommending teaching about religion today will oppose
it when religious beliefs like avatar-hood of Krishna,
prophet-hood of Mohammad and status of Christ as son
of God will be seriously interrogated in classrooms across
the nation.

This, however, is not an argument against teaching about
religions in schools. This is only to indicate that serious
preparation will be required before we could do that. We
have to prepare teachers and we have to prepare the
public to take critique of religions in a rational and
mutually accommodating spirit. A beginning in the
second could be made in the press by examining religious
beliefs and history more seriously than we do at the
moment.

The second claim that religions can provide a basis for
moral development is based on the false assumption that
in essentials all religions meet in perfect harmony. This
claim is born out of unduly reverential study of religions
and not out of critical study of them. Actually religions
are more often in serious confrontation with each other.
Claim of harmony is more of a politically correct
statement than a substantiated one. This disharmony
between different religious belief systems is enough to
dash all hope of religions becoming basis of moral
development in a secular system.

But there are even more unsurmountable problems.
Moral development does not mean memorisation of
moral maxims like “always tell the truth”. Nor is it
complete even if one is conditioned to act according to
such maxims. Moral development necessarily requires
ability to make reasoned judgment in the face of value
conflicts. There can be no predetermined formula to
resolve value conflicts arising in different actual contexts.
The religious ethics is essentially a faith based ethics. It
depends on the dogma or divine command, and
therefore, is not capable of independent rational
judgment. Another problem in religious ethics is that it is
essentially utilitarian and self-centred. You obey religious
dogma or divine command because you want personal
favours from the divinity or you want salvation. It,
therefore, depends on non-rational uncritical belief; for
personal benefit. How does one square development of
critical reason for democratic citizenship and uncritical
belief formation in the same classroom?

In conclusion perhaps we can say that teaching about
religions cannot form a basis for moral development.
Though, it could be very important for development of
mutual understanding and sensitivity between different
religious groups. However, even for this second purpose
introduction of critical study of different religious in
schools will require enormous preparation and a very
cautious approach.

19
th
July 2014
Rohit Dhankar, Azim Premji University, Bangalore & Digantar,
Jaipur.
[email protected]